Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

On 11/30/11 9:18 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2011, at 8:13 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/11 8:59 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>> On 30 Nov 2011, at 6:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/28/11 3:32 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>>>> On 28 Nov 2011, at 2:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/28/11 11:00 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28 Nov 2011, at 9:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you know, WebApps has two XHR specs in its charter: XHR(1) and XHR2:
>>>>>>> Hi Art,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   XMLHttpRequest (aka XHR1) ; CR published 2-Aug-2010
>>>>>>>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   XMLHttpRequest Level 2 ; last WD published 16-Aug-2011
>>>>>>>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anne is currently the Editor of both specs and he can no longer commit to XHR1 and no one else in WebApps is willing to be the Editor of XHR1. However, Anne did commit to continue work on XHR2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As such, our basic requirements for these two specs are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Use the XHR shortname for what is now the XHR2 spec
>>>>>>>> * No longer use the XHR2 shortname
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, how do we actually go about this? Is there a precedence we can follow or learn from? Please provide your advice/recommendation here ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One option is to simply redirect the XHR2 shortname to XHR and add some explanatory text to the new XHR spec that explains the rationale for merging the two specs. Note, however, a few people indicated the simple redirection as problematic but I think the majority of the WG supports it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another option is to update the document in TR/XHR2/ to reflect the group's decision to consolidate the specs into TR/XHR/ and to effectively obsolete the TR/XHR2 spec. Could the editing of TR/XHR2/ done "in place" or would it require re-publishing it (possibly as WG Note?)?
>>>>>>> That is my main question: is there any reason for XHR1 to survive? If not, then it seems like whatever is the thing people care about most should be XHR1.
>>>>>> The contents of the document at TR/XHR/ (aka XHR1) will not survive. The WG wants to replace the contents of TR/XHR/ with the contents of TR/XHR2/ (well actually, the latest ED of XHR2) and we will never again publish anything at  TR/XHR2/.
>>>>> Could you move what you want to XHR and call it "XMLHttpRequest 1"?
>>>> I think Anne does not want to include a version/level number in the title.
>>> Fine by me.
>>>
>>>>> You could (for now) end the XHR2 line with 1-page stub document that says "We've moved! But we're keeping this stub document in the case we really do want to publish an XHR2 someday."
>>>> Yes, we could do something like that.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like this boils down to: is the Team (Pub, Comm and WebApps) OK with going the redirect option? If not, what is the Team's recommendation?
>>> Since the group is essentially merging two docs into one, I don't see how to avoid a redirect.
>> OK, so what needs to be done to make that redirect happen (now)?
> Does it happen now or when there is a publication? I had assumed it was all going to happen as a single act:
>
>   * Merge with explanation in status
>   * Redirect
>
>>> +1 to using "version 1" (even if the 1 is silent) instead of "version 2" for the merged result.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to include in the status section a short statement about the merger.
>> Anne already included information about the merge in the ED that will be used as the basis for TR/XMLHttpRequest/:
>>
>>   [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#specification-history
>>
>> FYI, earlier today I started a CfC to publish a new WD of [1] and I anticipate submitting a PubReq for that WD on December 6.
> Can we do the redirect on 6 Dec?

That seems reasonable to me. I will include a request/reminder in the 
PubReq.

-AB

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 14:25:05 UTC